[ Page 331 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supply Act (No –– 1), 1983 (Bill 10)

Royal Assent –– 331

Tabling Documents

Special report of the Auditor-General of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker –– 331

Oral Questions

Trading in Sunmask shares. Mr. Howard –– 331

Superannuation withdrawals by terminated employees. Mr. Hanson –– 332

New year's message of Provincial Secretary. Mr. Hanson –– 332

"Privatization" of legal services to government. Ms. Brown 332

Cruise missile testing. Mr. Nicolson –– 333

Jesco Financial Services contract. Hon. Mr. Smith replies –– 333

Public Service Restraint Act (Bill 3). Second reading.

Mr. Stupich –– 334

Mr. Mitchell –– 336

Mr. Barnes –– 340

Mr. Rose –– 345

Mr. Nicolson –– 349

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 1), 1983

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have in the galleries today Mr. D.R.J. Campbell, better known as Dan, who served in this House from 1956 to 1972. For 16 years he represented the constituency of Comox. He did a good job representing that constituency and is still living there, on Cortes Island. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming him.

MR. HOWARD: Many of us have vivid memories of Mr. Campbell, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like the House to join me in welcoming today — they're in the precincts if not in the gallery — the mayor and council from the district municipality of Kitimat. Mayor Thom is also the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to welcome a clutch of my relatives from the Victoria side who are in your gallery today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What's a clutch?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's more than a few. They are Mrs. Grace Humphries, Mrs. Adele Wicket and her three daughters Rebecca, Elizabeth and Esther, and Mrs. Gale Bexton and her two sons, Nathan and Sean.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, there are three friends of mine in the gallery today. I'd like to ask everyone to welcome them with me. They are Alderman Dan Miller, from the city of Prince Rupert, his daughter Laura and his son Jason.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Harry Mathias, the unsuccessful candidate in the Kootenay riding — but only temporarily. Next time!

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome two ladies who have been active in the equestrian and tennis fields, Mrs. Rhonda Doorman and Mrs. Thelma Legge of Parksville.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have the pleasure to submit the second special report of the auditor-general of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

TRADING IN SUNMASK SHARES

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and ask him, in view of the disclosure over the weekend that certain members of this House have been trading in shares of Sunmask Petroleum — the company involved in potential ownership of the Spetifore property through Dawn Development — if he can advise what investigation into this particular matter his department has conducted, and if any is completed?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe that same question was taken on notice some time ago.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I can advise the member that after I took the question on notice I instructed my staff in the superintendent of brokers' office to carry out an investigation. That is underway at the present time, and I haven't had a response to my query as yet.

MR. HOWARD: In view of the extraordinarily large volume of trading in Sunmask shares on the days prior to the introduction of the Spetifore amendment, or Bill 9, into this House, has the minister decided to investigate the possibility of any inside information — not insider in the sense of corporate insider information, but political insider information?

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: The investigation that will be carried out by the superintendent of brokers will deal with any irregularities there might be. I'm not sure of the second part of the question, but I believe that question was addressed a year or so ago by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who tried to raise the political question in this chamber. At that time he was found wanting, and I think this member is going the same way.

MR. HOWARD: It is interesting to note that the minister has made a predetermination about something under investigation. Has the minister decided to investigate whether or not any member of this House received escrow shares in Sunmask Petroleum on terms far more favourable than were available to the general public?

HON. MR. HEWITT: When I receive the report back from the superintendent of brokers' office, I will advise the member of the findings at that time.

[ Page 332 ]

SUPERANNUATION WITHDRAWALS
BY TERMINATED EMPLOYEES

MR. HANSON: I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. As the Provincial Secretary knows, thousands of auxiliary employees working for the government have long-term service — perhaps five or six years. His ministry is adding additional hardship to these employees, because when they're fired, the Superannuation Commission is saying they are not entitled to draw their superannuation contributions for eight or nine months, as the government may want to recall them and fire them again. Has the minister decided to advise the Superannuation Commission that it is government policy to fire government employees without cause, and they are therefore entitled to draw their superannuation as requested?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The whole question put by that member is based on a false premise, and an answer to that kind of a question is not justified.

MR. HANSON: To the Provincial Secretary on a supplementary, it is not a false premise.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It is so.

MR. HANSON: It is not a false premise.

There are people being advised that they have to wait eight or nine months, after being fired unjustly, without recourse, from your government. In view of the legislation before this House, which will allow the government's contribution to be recovered upon firing an employee, what is the justification for putting that bounty on government employees?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Any public servants being dismissed will get their superannuation contributions back forthwith.

NEW YEAR'S MESSAGE OF
PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

MR. HANSON: Excellent.

On a new question, in the New Year's message from the Provincial Secretary to all government employees, which was paid for at taxpayer expense....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: He says "Big deal." The Provincial Secretary had a remark in his letter: "The government does not wish to take abrupt action in reducing the size of the public service. Massive layoffs are not desirable. My personal object is to avoid layoffs and to minimize the disruptions to government workers and the public alike. Attrition can do the job." Has the minister investigated to determine how this seriously misleading information managed to get out of the minister's office under his signature?

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, the member is wrong again. The member suggests that I have communicated with the public servants at great expense. I want to tell him it was not at great expense, because any message that I've conveyed to the public servants of this province was included with their paycheque and, therefore, was of insignificant expense. It was substantially less than many of the bulletins, brochures and the Christmas mailings made by the members of the NDP. When you use first-class mail for those kinds of communications, it's substantially greater than my method of communicating with the public servants of this province.

The objective at the time, Mr. Speaker, was that we were going to attempt to cut back the public service by attrition. We've now come to the conclusion that economic circumstances have changed in British Columbia, and if you're not aware of that it's because you haven't read the budget. The proposed deficit in British Columbia this year — in the budget that we're debating in the House today — is 60 percent greater than it was last year. Economic circumstances have changed in British Columbia. Therefore we must address that particular issue, and that's exactly what we're doing now.

While we would have desired achieving a cutback to a leaner public service through attrition, because of the change in economic circumstances in British Columbia it wasn't possible, and therefore we've had to take a different approach to that particular problem.

MR. HANSON: The only change is that the provincial election took place, and they didn't have to tell the truth before.

In view of the government's mass firings, which continue in all departments of government, will the minister send a similar memo in the paycheques and superannuation cheques of these employees and apologize for deliberately misleading them prior to the provincial election?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the term "deliberately mislead" is unacceptable. Please rephrase the question.

MR. HANSON: For misleading the employees.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the first member for Victoria uses pretty extreme language. He uses it not only here but in other areas as well. I take exception to some of the innuendos and some of the accusations which aren't really parliamentary, in my opinion, dealing with the question of telling the truth. I take strong exception to those kinds of approaches. I take strong exception as well to the false statements that are made from time to time, not necessarily by that member, but by members of that side of the House about the question of firings, Mr. Speaker, because as far as reduction of the public service in this province is concerned, no one has been fired. You've got to recognize that and take that into consideration when you look at the answer that I gave just a few moments ago. When I said that the firings.... If anyone is dismissed from the public service in British Columbia, they'll get their superannuation contributions back forthwith.

"PRIVATIZATION" OF LEGAL
SERVICES TO GOVERNMENT

MS. BROWN: My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I just want to say as an aside that the comments of the Provincial Secretary would seem to indicate that he has been opening the mail of the opposition members. However, we'll investigate that later.

The 1982 annual report of your Ministry, Mr. Attorney-General, states that the legal-services-to-government branch

[ Page 333 ]

was organized in line with the recommendations of the Jesco Financial Services report. That report says that the organization effected $1 million in savings to the ministry. In view of this information, can you now explain to the House why the government has decided to privatize legal services to government?

HON. MR. SMITH: The premise is incorrect. "Privatize legal services" does not mean privatize all legal services. It means examining ways in which existing legal services might be done more efficiently in the private sector, but it doesn't mean privatizing all legal services. If some efficiencies have already been obtained, more can be.

MS. BROWN: Supplementary. I never cease to wonder what they are clapping over, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the savings, as I've said before, which were cited again by the Jesco report through the reduced use of ad hoc counsels by the ministry, can the Attorney-General now tell us why the government is choosing to use more ad hoc counsels rather than fewer?

HON. MR. SMITH: In some cases it may be more efficient to do that, particularly in smaller communities where the workload is less or varies; in other cases it may be efficient not to. The member well knows that nothing is necessarily efficient because it is in house or out of house; it's what works best.

MS. BROWN: I have a supplementary question. I would hope that the ministry has always done what was more efficient, and that the Attorney-General is not telling us that now they are going to begin to do what is efficient but that in the past they were indulging themselves in inefficient practices. Can the Attorney-General explain why the vote for legal services to government has actually increased, as reported in the estimates, by over half a million dollars? If it's more efficient, it's going to be more cost effective. How do you explain the over half-a-million-dollar increase?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think that estimates is the proper time to deal with these matters, not here.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I thought that question period gave us an opportunity to ask questions of the ministers. I realize that they don't have to give answers. However, I have another supplementary.

Can the Attorney-General tell us whether he has decided to privatize the Crown counsel services?

HON. MR. SMITH: I have not decided to totally privatize any part of government legal services, as I told the member.

MS. BROWN: I think what we have, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between firing and dismissal, and now total and partial. Can the Attorney-General confirm that the government has decided to scrap the tradition of professional legal advice and professional prosecutions in favour of a pork-barrel system of government-preferred private counsel?

HON. MR. SMITH: Of course, the short answer to that highly politicized and improper question is no. What this member does by asking questions in that form is cause concerns and worries on the part of loyal public servants who are performing their duties as Crown counsel. It's patently obvious that that is their main concern.

CRUISE MISSILE TESTING

MR. NICOLSON: My question is to the Premier. In view of the decision announced late Friday by the government of Canada that it will allow testing of the cruise missile system in Canada, can the Premier advise whether he has contacted the Prime Minister to protest Canada's involvement in the escalation of the arms race?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Premier decided to call resolution No. 3 on the order paper so that all members of this House may express the view that the people of this province find cruise missile testing in Canada unacceptable?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, that's a determination on the order of House business that will be made by the House Leader during the course of the session. I'm sure that the House Leader will consider all business already of record that may be placed before this House. That's yet to come. It might have a fair opportunity.

JESCO FINANCIAL SERVICES CONTRACT

HON. MR. SMITH: Questions that were asked of me in the House on July 6 by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) had to do with the contract of Jesco Financial Services Ltd. The first question was whether or not the contract had been extended effective July 1 or any other date. The answer is that the current contract was signed on August 1, 1982, and terminates on July 31, 1984. There has been no extension of it.

The second question was whether the government of British Columbia pays the flying or any other expenses of Mr. Jessiman, who is the recipient of that contract, so he can do his business in Winnipeg, etc., etc. The answer to that question is no. Mr. Jessiman is only paid travel expenses in connection with his duties under his contract with the ministry, not matters of a business nature that he might deal with in Winnipeg.

The third question is: has the Attorney-General decided to table that contract in this House? That question has been asked before in this House, and the answer remains no.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: One of the youngest members of this House went over the hill today when he turned 40. I wonder if the House would join me in wishing a happy birthday to the old first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson).

[ Page 334 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE RESTRAINT ACT
(continued debate)

[2:30]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that when I was discussing this legislation on Friday — perhaps I should briefly summarize some of my points — I started by saying that the government had broken faith with the people who voted Social Credit in the last election and that they've done this regularly after every election. They have proceeded to break and to forget their campaign promises, and they did again this time.

The government promised there would be no large-scale firing of public sector employees. They have now indicated that they intend to reduce the public sector by 25 percent, and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) himself said that there are some 300,000 employees working in the public sector as defined in this legislation. That's a reduction of 62,500, which certainly qualifies as mass-scale firing. They said it would be handled by attrition. They said there would be no hospital user fee increases, and of course they proceeded to introduce them as soon as they brought in the budget. They said there would be no tax increases, and they introduced those as well with the budget. So they proceeded to break their campaign promises the moment they had an opportunity.

The Provincial Secretary told us today that the reason for this was that economic circumstances changed. That certainly was miraculous, wasn't it, how quickly they changed from May 5 to May 6. On May 5 there was no need for mass-scale firing, tax increases or hospital user fee increases. On May 6, all of a sudden economic circumstance had changed and there was a need for all of these draconian measures.

When I was speaking Friday, Mr. Speaker, I was urging some of the government members to get up and tell us how they really feel about this legislation, to see if they had anything to say, even if they could manufacture arguments in support of it. We'd certainly prefer if they told us how they really felt about it, but if they want to speak in support, well, okay. You may recall that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) indicated that he was anxious to speak. I suggest that he may need some reminder today. When I sit down, if you could help me remind him that he wants to speak, we'd all look forward to hearing from him. He's nodding now, so I expect that means that he's getting ready to speak in this debate.

When this legislation was being talked about — actually before we started second reading, but in a discussion of it — the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) used some words at which the Premier took offence. The first member for Victoria, in putting a question to the Premier, said: "The Premier's government has introduced laws into this House which flow from the kinds of dictatorship we see in Chile and Poland." The Premier took offence and said: "I take great offence at that member and his political extremism of mentioning Chile and Poland." I don't recall any such laws ever being debated publicly in Poland or Chile, or Germany or Italy before the war. These kinds of things weren't done publicly. Any such government going this far would want it done very quietly. The books I've read and the movies I've seen all showed secret police arriving in dead of night and breaking down doors and arresting people, but none of them showed anything of any public debate. Introducing legislation in 1983 that provides for the firing of 25 percent of some 250,000 people without cause must be just about as bad as anything that any such government would have done. When the Polish government decided to take on the Polish people, it was the trade-union movement, as represented by Solidarity, that they went after; and they're still going after them. That's exactly the action that this government is taking, with legislation that gives it the right to fire without notice or cause anyone working in the public sector — a total people involvement of some 250,000 to 300,000.

Speaking in debate in this House in 1973, the hon. member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) used language.... Speaking on March 20 — Hansard page 1470 — he said: "We're going to have to have a Magna Carta in a few years. If Bill 42 passes we'll have to get a Magna Carta in British Columbia to protect our rights and get them back again. That's what this Magna Carta was all about." I think that the member should be reminded of those words today. What kind of Magna Carta are we going to require in the province of British Columbia — when will it come in? — to bring back the rights that we're going to lose by the passing of this legislation? We know that it's going to pass, unless the government can be persuaded by the people within its own ranks who are objecting to this legislation. We see no signs of that, but we certainly hope that there is some measure of rebellion within the government ranks about this legislation.

I saw a little bit of a movie on Thursday evening: Hennessey. I was reminded of it today when the Lieutenant-Governor came in to give assent to legislation. In this movie, the little bit that I saw, the Queen was approaching the Houses of Parliament to address the House of Lords in the Throne Speech. The Horse Guards were there dressed up in their uniforms, riding their horses, very impressive, and yet a lot of pomp and ceremony. It looked as though there was a lot of time and money being wasted. And what was it all about? What it was all about, Mr. Speaker, was what the hon. member for South Peace River was talking about — the Magna Carta. It started that long ago with the Mother of Parliaments. Sure it looks as though we're making a great show of these things, but there is some real meaning behind the ceremonies that we still follow to this day. What's happening this day? This is the day — and the days after, in this debate — when we're going to require a new Magna Carta in the province of British Columbia. Hopefully Canada itself will take some action in this, but in B.C. what are we going to do to get back the rights that 250,000 to 300,000 employees are losing by this legislation? They're not the real target, Mr. Speaker; that's just the first row of attack. What they're really taking on is the whole trade union movement.

As I indicated in my remarks on Friday, they're not just after a quarter of a million people; they're after a million. They're hoping to destroy the trade union movement in the same way that the Polish government hoped to destroy the trade union movement in Poland. That's their target, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 335 ]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Forests is speaking again, and I do invite him to wait, because I will be finished shortly, and then I'd like to hear from him. I hope he has some contribution to make to this debate.

In the course of speaking on the budget I quoted some words from the throne speech. I never pay much attention to throne speeches; they don't tell us much about what is going to come in in the way of legislation. There was more in this one, I suppose, than in others. I didn't pay much attention to the pomp and ceremony until I saw a bit of that show on TV on Thursday evening.

I want to remind the members, again, about the opening and closing of the throne speech that we heard on June 23. In the first paragraph: "May I express the wish that your goals and aspirations and the needs of the people you represent will be met in the course of your service as individual members and as the Legislature of our magnificent province." Good words, Mr. Speaker — words to be remembered and that we should pay attention to. That's what we should be thinking about when we're dealing with legislation here. How is the legislation before us now going to serve the needs of the people of British Columbia?

Later, very near the end of the speech: "Hon. members, you now begin a most important and demanding session. Our people are coming through very painful times, yet there is considerable distance to travel. I pray that in carrying out your duties you will reflect fully on the example of your decisions and their effect on the people of our province and our country."

The right to organize, to form into associations with your fellow workers, is something that has been won by workers in this province and country over many years of struggle. When I was speaking on Friday, I told of my father's experience, some 70 miles away from here in South Wellington, when they were fighting for the right to organize. They had to sneak around in the dark of night, meet quietly and privately with just a few people, none of them really knowing who else was involved, because they knew that if the employer heard about it they would lose their jobs. That's the kind of situation we're facing today with the legislation before us. Any one or any number of these people may be fired without cause. Supposing someone in the Social Credit Party suspects that a government employee is supporting the NDP; that may very well be reason enough to fire that person.

MR. LEA: That's with cause.

MR. STUPICH: The member says that there is cause, but they don't have to say that's the cause; they don't have to give any cause at all. Even if they were going to give that reason it would be something, some excuse for firing the person. There can be all kinds of reasons. There were all sorts of stories coming out of Germany during the war, of people telling stories about other people — some true and some not true. It didn't matter. All it took was a rumour, a wild story, and that's all it will take under this legislation. If someone in the government service wants to make room for a shirt-tail relation and appoint him to a very well paying job in the public service, all they have to do is quietly ask someone to make sure that the person in the way is fired — they don't need any cause. "Just get them out of the way so that I can appoint my relation, and all will be well."

The whole public service, 250,000 to 300,000 people, will be waiting for the guillotine to fall when this happens. There really isn't anyone, of all those people, who has the security. What does it do to the other trade unionists? We're talking here about 250,000 people. I don't know how many of those would be union members. There certainly wouldn't be any more than 100,000 union members in that group. But in the total public sector there must be some 40 unions involved, when you look at all the Crown corporations, all the organizations that are represented in the public sector here. Every one of those trade union organizations is going to have to take into account, in signing collective agreements with employers, other than those operating in the public sector, the fact that some of their trade union colleagues are working under legislation that allows them to be fired without cause at any time. No cause need be given; they are simply told: "Look, that's the end of it."

The Provincial Secretary said today that no one has been fired — yet. Why is it that people think they have been fired? Something has gone wrong with their communication. Maybe you have communicated very economically in the past week or so. If that's the case, I suggest you start using some more expensive communication and save a lot of heartache. The leader of the opposition read into the record a letter from one of my constituents addressed to the Premier, with a copy to myself. Certainly this person believed she was fired. A copy went to the Provincial Secretary as well. I have not seen his reply yet; I assume there is one coming, and I expect I'll get a copy of it. This person was coming in to meet my constituency assistant today, because she firmly believes she was fired. That's the information she got from the Provincial Secretary's emissary — or from someone; I don't know, it doesn't identify the person. The person was not working in the Provincial Secretary's ministry, but someone or other.

[2:45]

This letter starts out: "As I never before have been fired from a position...." The last paragraph: "Obviously the directive to fire came from you." This letter is addressed to the Premier. This person rightly knows, as the Premier made very plain to the cabinet, that he's running the show. He's the boss. He doesn't need a deputy premier any more. He doesn't owe anybody anything. He won the election on his own. He can forget completely and absolutely all the promises he made during the election campaign, because whatever he did, he was successful in winning and that's all that counts. He can pay no attention at all to anybody. He does everything exactly the way he wants to, and that's the way it's going to be. This past employee, as she describes herself, certainly knows that's where the order came from ultimately; perhaps not in this specific instance, but certainly the order to fire came from him.

It really is terrible legislation. We have never before had to discuss anything like this. As I said earlier, the member for South Peace River was talking about Bill 42, which was a legislative attempt to zone agricultural land. It was already being zoned in some areas, but there was no overall plan. Some regional districts and municipalities were doing it. The provincial government wasn't involved at all, although for some six years I asked the Minister of Agriculture year after year just what he had in mind. He agreed with the need to preserve agricultural land, but he couldn't think of any way to do it. He was always waiting for Canada Land Inventory maps, waiting for something, waiting for somebody to tell him how to do it. So we did it, and it simply applied to zoning

[ Page 336 ]

farmland. We then proceeded to bring in legislation to mitigate the effects of that for farmers who were trying to make a living by farming. This legislation threatens not only the job security of those working in the public service but, through their association with everyone else working in the province, threatens the livelihood of every person in the province.

Mr. Speaker, with this legislation there are only 57 public service employees in the province who have job security for a period of a full five years. With this kind of legislative program, they won't dare go to the polls until the full five years is up. So there are only 57 public sector employees out of some 250,000 to 300,000 who needn't worry about being called tonight at dinnertime and told: "You're fired." Only 57 out of 300,000 have security. Cabinet members can't feel secure in their position as members of cabinet, but they know they can't be fired as MLAs until that election is called; then it's up to the voter. We look after ourselves, don't we. The legislation doesn't prevent us from having job security, but at passage of this legislation we'll be saying to the total community: "The government wants the right to fire anyone at any time without cause, and is hoping to give leadership so that the private sector will negotiate similar agreements in its bargaining." It's opening the door to that kind of bargaining.

I think the opposition has made it abundantly clear that we can't support this legislation. I'm pleased that the Minister of Forests is going to take his place in debate and tell us how he feels about it. I would like him to have a bit more time to get ready for his place in this debate, and in order to give him the time to think about what he's doing to the people working in his own ministry by voting for this legislation. He's saying to all the people in his ministry, from the deputy on down, that if anyone doesn't like the shape of your beard, the color of your socks, or if anyone has any suspicion that you're doing something they don't like — it could be politics, it could be in their personal life, whatever — that you, representing the government, would have the right under this legislation to fire any of those people and not have to tell anyone the cause. Mr. Speaker, in order to give him the time to reflect on this, and to give other members on the government side of the House some opportunity to reflect on whether or not they want to say anything about the legislation, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 27

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. MITCHELL: The reason I hesitated was that I was under the impression that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) wanted to enter the debate, and I was allowing him the opportunity. I do believe in such things as political democracy, that we exchange sides and have a few speakers from the other side of the House.

In my first participation in the debate, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Speaker and the Deputy Speaker on his election. I would also like to welcome all new members and returning members. I would especially like to comment on what the member for Burnaby–Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) did. He did in four years with one try what took me 27 years and two tries to accomplish. Little things like that. I realize the effort it took me, and I appreciate the effort he took.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

As you are most likely aware, Mr. Speaker, I find that I will not be able to support Bill 3. This may come as a surprise. I think it's only fair to vote the House. I don't believe that I will change too many of the members sitting in the House, but those sitting in the precincts and in the galleries may want to know why people on this side of the House have taken the position we have. I think it's important. A society that enjoys parliamentary democracy should take a look at history and the types of benefits, rights, laws, and the type of legislation and the type of agreements that have evolved over the hundreds of years whereby our democracy has come to be where it is today. The laws of society were never written in stone. They were never handed down from up above. They evolved because of the efforts and the input from everyone who has gone before us.

[3:00]

I look at the trade union movement; I look at the pensions; I look at education; I look at the rights of being able to get up and express our opinions, not only in the Legislature, where we have certain historical immunities, but out on the street. We can go out in our homes, and in the halls, and in organizations. These are the rights that we have fought for. These are the rights that I feel this House has a moral obligation to preserve.

When one piece of legislation can come down, with a stroke of a pen, because one political party wants to turn the clock back.... I don't care what particular reason they use. They can use such things as "restraint." They can use the idea that they're going to save money. But when you trample on the rights that have been fought for, rights that people from my riding.... My riding is a military riding. We have both

[ Page 337 ]

the army and the navy. Citizens of my community have gone to war and died to protect the legislation that has evolved through our parliamentary system. Then all of a sudden, with very little debate, with the vast majority we are continuously told the opposite side of the House — the government side — has, their members are not getting up and explaining why they want to trample on those rights.

I happen to come from a profession, as a policeman, where we had to fight, we had to negotiate, we had to plead to get certain concessions, to get certain security in our employment. These were the rights to deal with the public honestly with the proper training. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, when I first became a policeman — and that wasn't that long ago — the attitude was that a policeman was issued four things: a uniform, a gun, a ticket-book and a quota. I remember those days when we were fighting and going through the labour legislation that was at that time in vogue that we couldn't discuss such things as training. We had to petition the government. We had to go to the councils and to the police commission for the proper training so that police officers, when they dealt with the public, had the facts, had the knowledge, and had the understanding and compassion a police officer needed. We fought for those. If this type of legislation had been in place where the employer could fire a person without cause, I would have been fired years ago. I would have been fired because I fought for training. I fought for an understanding and a better police force in my area. The police commissioners, the mayor, the aldermen and the Attorney-General at that time were opposed to my views. They were opposed to the views of the working policemen.

Everyone sitting in this House knows that if we had rocked the boat with this legislation in place, we would have been out on the street. This is what I am opposed to, because this is what's going to happen throughout the working community. So many people believe that this particular bill is only going to affect government workers close to this precinct. But this is going to affect every public servant, be he a policeman, a garbage man, a hospital worker, or a schoolteacher. Everyone who has dedicated his life, who has worked to gain an education so he is competent in his chosen field, who after many years of dedicated service — excellent service to the public.... If he happens to speak out of place, or for some unknown reason the supervisor, the local politician or the provincial government decides they want to cut, they can go indiscriminately through the roster of the workforce and pick anyone they want to get rid of. I say to each one of the members of the government side of the House who are going to have to make that sincere decision: are you going to support that type of approach to legislation? Are you going to enlarge unemployment because you think that is an answer, that it is going to solve something? All it is going to do, Mr. Speaker — and you know it; any economist knows it — is to compound the problems we have in this province right now. It's going to compound the problems we have in Canada, because it's going to deny the security of someone who has been hired, someone who has dedicated his life — it could be to human rights, or to such things as automobile-testing stations.... He has gone out, worked five, ten — I believe some up to 19 — years.... They have been encouraged by this government — by society, because all this government is.... Each one of us, each one of the 57 who are sitting in this House today, is only the representative of society. Society makes the decisions. Society has empowered us to set certain guidelines, and these guidelines that we have set up.... We have set up these various boards and services, and then 35 people feel in their wisdom that they have a mandate to tear it down.

I guess I have looked at as many political advertisements put out by the Social Credit government.... I know that I can't hold this up because it would be classed as a display, or something like that, so I won't hold it up so you will rule me out of order. But this is — I'm laying it down — a Social Credit political ad. I went through this political ad. Nowhere in this political ad does it say that they were going to deny the rights of the people of British Columbia. Nowhere in this ad do they say where they are going to cut services. Nowhere on all this page — and I know the cost of a full page in the Times-Colonist doesn't come cheaply.... But of all the promises laid out in bold type, not one of them said they were going to increase hospital service fees; not one of them said they were going to wipe out human rights; not one ad in there said they were going to indiscriminately lay off all the people in the EBAP program. In fact, in the fifth paragraph it goes on to say what a great program the bridging program is. But what was one of the first announcements made when this House sat? The end of the bridging program — wiped out. They wiped it out because, according to the government figures, over 5,000 people were employed by it. The federal government with its donation was putting in in the neighbourhood of $11 million. It was going to cost the province $4 million to keep 5,000 workers employed. Before the House even got into the budget speech, they wiped that out. I know that if I said that the public was misled you might accept that, but if I said they were deliberately misled, then you would rule that out of order. So I won't say they were deliberately misled. But they were led to believe that some of these programs that were creating employment would stay in force.

I remember the campaign very plainly, and I do know people who were out of work who were working in the bridging program. They were getting the extra $112 per week — I believe it is — to supplement their UIC. One of them came to me prior to May 5 and said that Social Credit had come out and spoken to a group of their workers out at Muir Creek and told them that if the NDP got in this program was going to be wiped out. I went out and met them, talked to them and looked at some of the work they were doing, and assured them that if we got in, the money would be made available and they would continue to work. But as soon as the government came in they wiped it out. They didn't have the $4 million.

It's funny. In my riding, just a short time before the election, this government dumped $2 million into the Highways department and told them to use that money in high-visibility work. I talked to the engineers and public servants who work in our Highways department; they were happy to get the $2 million, but they wished they had a little lead time to plan the roads and get the base in so that when they laid the blacktop, the high-visibility election gimmick, the $2 million would be spent and have some lasting effect. But that's not the way this government did it. They spent $2 million in my riding to try and get the job for one person. It wasn't for me; it was to elect one Social Crediter. When you can go out and waste $2 million of the public's money — it's not the government's money or the opposition's money — for one person, but you can't find $4 million for 5,000, I say this government is lacking in the moral integrity that I think the province of B.C. deserves. Their attitude and the way they are looking at where we should go....

[ Page 338 ]

[3:15]

One of the programs they wiped out is the motor vehicle testing station. I don't want to go on about my ex-profession, but I was a police officer before they had a testing station in British Columbia, and I know the many accidents and injuries and deaths caused by having unsafe vehicles out on the highway. This might be all right in the rural areas where you don't have the heavy traffic that we have in the Greater Victoria and Vancouver areas, but we cannot afford to have unsafe vehicles on the highways. I believe you can remember when one out of ten cars driving down the highway was belching black smoke. It was considered that it needed a ring job, it needed this, they put too much oil in, they used something that was wrong. There was always an excuse for it. It was a part of our life. It polluted our air and the cities. Sitting behind a car, you'd have all this black smoke coming in. Because of the safety stations, a lot of that was wiped out. Sometimes out on a black road with a vehicle approaching you, when he dimmed his lights they were still hitting you dead in the eyes. When you're on some of the rural roads in my riding and you have two headlights coming right into your eyes, that is a hazard. Some of the programs were wiping that out. Cars were going in every year. People were being educated, being instructed, and they were forced to have a car that was safe to drive — safe not only for the driver and passengers in that car, but for the other vehicles and pedestrians out on the road.

With the stroke of a pen it was wiped out. As I said, I went all through this piece of literature, "For a Future That Works," and nowhere in there did it say this government was going to wipe out one of the major safety devices or programs that makes our highways safer to drive on. I know they might even privatize them, and I give that as a suggestion if you haven't already thought of it; if you haven't given all your Social Credit friends who own garages the rights and the privilege to put the sticker on. If you give those rights to a lot of garages, motorists will come in and be told they have to get this and that fixed. There won't be a $5 inspection fee before they get out of that garage; it will be a $500 fee in some cases, or $50 or $150. It will be a make-work program for those few people who manage to get that right. Maybe this is what the government has in mind for all the ex-used-car salesmen and dealers who make up the majority in cabinet over there in that group. I don't know what it is, but I know it is a service and a responsibility which the government accepted. It made the roads a lot safer to drive on.

To a certain degree you have to look at it from a philosophical point of view. I think this legislation refers to the budget speech by my good friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). One thing I found very shocking was when that minister said that the people of British Columbia must not continue to hold the expectations they had. He's saying to the people of British Columbia that the chance to own your own home, to go out to work, to learn a trade, to get an education, or to get a profession — if you feel this is what you need.... Those expectations have to be cut back for certain people. This legislation cuts it back for a lot of public servants.

If this particular piece of legislation goes through and the axe comes down on the public service, that same axe will come down on the rest of the citizens of British Columbia, be they union or non-union, professional or non-professional. The cutbacks will be devastating to a lot of families.

I know of one particular industry in my precinct, where a lot of the employees work in B.C. Forest Products, in plywood and sawmill. A lot of them have worked 5, 10, 15.... I believe one worked 31 years, and private industry said they were going to shut down this particular plant. I can't use anything less than "devastating" to describe the effect that that had on families scattered throughout the greater Victoria area.

During the campaign I remember knocking on the doors of people who have worked all their lives. Because they had a certain amount of security — they had a good job — they could afford to buy a home, to make a fair-sized down payment of $20,000 or $30,000; they could afford to make the mortgage payments. Even when the mortgage payments went up, when people were paying 18, 19 and 22 percent to have their mortgages renewed, they could still make those payments. They couldn't go on holidays; they couldn't buy some of the things their children needed. They had to go without a lot of other incidentals. In life the first two things we provide for are food and shelter. They could provide that shelter. But all of a sudden they were thrown out on the scrap heap. With the $700 or $800 they received on UIC, they could not make those inflated mortgage payments. They lost their homes; they lost their down payments; they lost everything — their life savings — they had put into that home. That was sad. It was wrong. But the government will not agree with that.

This government seems to think — and they use it in their debates — that if people in private industry get thrown out on the scrap heap, then we should do the same. I say it's wrong.

To each government member here, I say that this government should be giving leadership, not following along and devastating families. This government should be giving leadership, instead of bringing in legislation that is contained in Bill 3, which is going to destroy more homes. Just the stress of wondering whether your name, punched in on the computer.... You could be a garbage collector in Penticton. All of a sudden the Minister of Finance decides that he wants to cut back municipal grants, and he'll do just the same as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) does with his computer. If they want to cut costs in a certain school district.... It's all centralized in the Minister of Education's offices or in his ministry, and if they want to cut costs they punch the computer and they say, "Wipe out $20,000," and another teacher goes down the line. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) may decide he wants to cut out some of his grants, so he punches the computer and another person goes down the street.

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this government should have given the leadership that I believe the Canadian Catholic bishops tried to give last Christmas when they spoke out and said we are coming to a time in society when full employment should be the way that this country is going. I know that some of the politicians jumped up and screamed that bishops should not talk on such things as economics, on how it's going to affect their community, on what a rich country like Canada, what a richer province on a per capita basis than any other province, as we are in B.C. — that we in this province and this country, instead of having 200,000 people unemployed, or a million and a half people unemployed in Canada, cannot afford to continue this approach, and the waste of the main resource of this country, which is the human resource.

[ Page 339 ]

We cannot afford to allow people to drift down to the poverty level just to keep them surviving. I don't think society wants to. When I talk to the great majority of the people out on the street, they want the security of full employment themselves, the security of maximum health care, of the best education possibilities for their families that are mentally available within these families, of knowing that they are building an equity in some type of a pension plan that they can look forward to down the line with hope and dignity. I know that the vast majority of these people in my community equally want to share that with the rest of the community.

I know that if this government, instead of using a vindictive, vicious type of legislation, had given the leadership that this government is capable of giving.... Let's go back to 1978, when in the wisdom of the Premier he decided that he would go back to his Liberal friends in Ottawa and would propose to the first ministers' conference that we should raise the interest rate to 18.5 percent. The economists and people in the business world joined with the NDP and said: "If you go and raise interest to 18.5 percent, you're going to suck the money out of the economy, stop building and start a depression." But the Premier gave the leadership and went down to his Liberal friends, and Mr. Trudeau bought his particular program. He bought it, and that started the effect on the families and the businesses. Following in line with the Americans, the Thatchers and everything else, this was a simple answer. There is no simple answer to the program of full employment, but high interest and unemployment are not the answer either. If this government had gone to the federal government and had given the type of leadership that is needed to combine the resources of federal and municipal governments, the private sector and the provincial government, I know we could start a program of full employment, as the bishops have outlined; we could look at a type of society where people are going to be able to hold up their heads in pride and not worry in shame.

[3:30]

This is the sort of leadership that this government failed to give. They set out in their pamphlets and advertising all the jobs that were going to be created and all the wealth that was going to be produced, but the security that was needed is being denied.

What is their reasoning? They will just say: "Where's the money going to come from?" I think it's important at times, Mr. Speaker, that each one of us take a few moments and look back on history. Read back in history about when education was only there for the rich and the powerful. When the servants out in the fields, the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, were wanting an education, the same argument was used at that time: " Where is the money going to come from?" But eventually society at that time demanded that we look at universal education as a right. It is not right to have the largest part of the population uneducated. The money was made available.

Look back in history to the time when the industrial revolution was growing. The victims of that revolution became the derelicts on the street, panhandling and begging for food to feed their families and survive. When the church leaders and the activists in the communities said we must have some type of workers' compensation that will support those who were destroyed in industry, governments and business people said: "Where's the money going to come from?" Eventually the activists and church groups pleaded, begged, fought and demanded, and industry and governments provided compensation.

You can see the same arguments as you go through the history of pensions. When the fight was for an old age pension so that people could live in dignity, there were governments that came and went when they were promising it.... It wasn't until there was a minority government in Canada that, because a few socialists and labour people had control of that minority government and had the balance of power, we got old age pensions in this country. The same arguments went on time after time: where is the money going to come from? The money is in the community.

When I first came out of the army in 1946 and got involved in politics, the battle at that time was for health care — hospital insurance. We had all kinds of privatized hospital insurance programs. We had Blue Cross, IWA.... Lumber workers, shipyard workers, everyone had a particular little hospital plan. If you got sick and you had paid your premiums, your hospital bills were covered. The only problem when you got sick was that if you read the small print in some of these plans, you realized that.... The only people who got rich were those who were selling the insurance, not those who were trying to collect. At that time when I got into politics, and we were campaigning for such things as hospital insurance, the same argument was used: where's the money going to come from? In those days health care was being paid for. People were losing their homes, mortgaging their whole future, to pay a large hospital bill. They were being paid all right, but they were being paid by those who were sick.

That is exactly what is happening today. The unemployment bill is being paid. It is being paid because people are losing their life savings, their homes. They're the ones who are paying for it. We have to look at full employment, at a changed attitude or way of life. We can't go back, and this legislation — Bill 3 — is going back. When you go back or mark time, you go down. The government has failed to give leadership, to bring in something positive. They've brought in something vicious.

I really believe, in fairness to all members on the government side, that this bill really hasn't been thought out. It hasn't been thought out as to how it's going to improve the economic stability of this province. Because I want this government to think it out and study it, participate in the debate and put their reasons forward, and say what kind of leadership they're going to give, I therefore move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House so that the government can give a second thought.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

[ Page 340 ]

NAYS — 26

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. STRACHAN: I wonder if I could have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of myself, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), I'd like to have the House welcome to the gallery and the precincts Bill and Yvonne Kennedy and their children Michelle and Suzanne. The reason I draw the Minister of Municipal Affairs into this is because Bill Kennedy is the city treasurer for the city of Prince George, incoming officer of the Municipal Affairs Association and was one of the first people the member for Central Fraser Valley met when he became Minister of Municipal Affairs. Would the House please welcome these guests from Prince George.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would mind joining me in welcoming in the gallery today my brother and his wife, and their son-in-law and their daughter.

[3:45]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'd ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome to Alderman Joanne Monaghan from Kitimat, who was the Social Credit candidate in Skeena. We're very pleased to see her here today.

MR. CAMPBELL: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CAMPBELL: I would like to introduce Mr. Lance Arnt from Vernon. He's been going to the University of Victoria and is back down here right now. Would you give him a good welcome.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, fellow MLAs, and fortunate attendees in the galleries, this is a very special occasion. I would like first to read something from the book of bills. We are presently debating the Public Service Restraint Act, Bill 3, but I would like to read Bill 1, if it's in order. This House has decided that before any business takes place there is to be placed on the order paper, and in the order of bills, a bill which will protect our right to sit. I would just like to read that bill to you. I'm not sure that all of us pay much attention to what goes on in this House, but An Act to Perpetuate a Parliamentary Right — that's Bill 1 - states that:

"This act to perpetuate a parliamentary right is an important part of our democratic process. The purpose of this bill, and its introduction prior to consideration of the throne speech, is to perpetuate the established right of parliament, through its elected representatives, to sit and act without leave from the Crown.

"This bill simply asserts the right of the Legislative Assembly to give precedence to matters other than those expressed by the sovereign.

"Introducing it at this point in the opening proceedings of this Legislative Assembly is a tradition that dates back to the reign of Elizabeth I when on March 22, 1603, Parliament first recorded this assertion of independence from the Crown for purposes of legislation."

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that we start at the beginning. Unfortunately Bill 3, the Public Sector Restraint Act, seems to disregard the fact that there are other fundamental first things that should be done with respect to any act by any parliamentarian at any time on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and that is to make certain assumptions. Certain things are fundamental in a democratic society, and they seem to have been overlooked in this bill. These are the things that, quite frankly, after 11 years in this Legislature I personally am shocked at. I am shocked because I never thought I would see even Social Credit — those mortal enemies of the people's movement toward justice and legality in this society — go this far.

There is an explanation for their acts. It wasn't by accident; it was no miscalculation or mistake. Those members on that side of the House have had access to the powerbrokers in this society who have their own agendas and their own ideas about the direction society should go. I am sure that they were advised — we find now ill-advised — at the time prior to May 5 and prior to April 7 when they dissolved the House and told us that we were going to the people to have a general election that they'd made some calculations based on polling information, consultation with certain organizations who advise on the nature of people's thinking and their values. They were advised on the direction in which most people would like to go in order to protect themselves.

It was no accident that Bill 3 had such devastating clauses in it: removal from employment without just cause, and not only that but no appeal. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that in this day and age and in this democracy of ours, as hard as people work and struggle, that we have had a government claim that that is merely a restraint measure and that they are simply carrying out their mandate to cut down on the public service? Do you mean to tell me that you have to deny people due process of law in order to cut down on public service? Do you have to disregard the commitment of people who have studied, worked hard, scrimped and tried to raise their families with a sense of duty to society? You know what it's like to raise a family, Mr. Speaker. I don't need to get into those

[ Page 341 ]

details. But all of those public servants are people, although they have been stigmatized by those who would try to stereotype them.

It's a kind of class slander right across the board for everybody. It doesn't matter whether they are working for the government, municipalities, Crown corporations, commissions, school boards, hospital boards, universities, the police, the fire chief or the garbage collector. All of them. "We will fire them without due process, without a hearing, without regard for their contributions to society and without regard to their commitment to their work, their specialty and, furthermore, without regard to whatever service they may be providing, because that is not the point of what we are doing."

I think the people of British Columbia were caught in an ideological struggle. I think there is something more sinister and far more diabolical than just trying to restrain the spending of public tax dollars. It's something far more serious, far more desperate and far more categorically fitting under the description that the Leader of the Opposition used the other day when he said: "A black angel was coming over British Columbia." That's a contradiction. Imagine an angel that's black. Now that's a turn, isn't it? British Columbia is in a crisis that I don't think has hit them yet. I don't say I shock lightly; I don't think any of us do in this House. We have pretty tough skins. We do a lot of yelling and screaming back and forth across the floor. But I can tell you that I was numbed. I thought: "What can I say?" I was hit in the pit of my stomach and I could not believe that after all these years.... I'd come all the way from down in New Orleans, Louisiana, where oppressive politics is the name of the game, especially for people who are underprivileged and without access to the law and who do not have the power to defend themselves. I was used to that, so I got out of there and went up north to Portland, in the beautiful state of Oregon. Things were a little bit better, but not much, because as times got tough down below, some of those people were moving up with their ideas about special treatment for some members of society and not for the others, and I still suffered. When I finally got to Vancouver, I knew I had it made, until I ran into a few people who had come up here from down there. I don't know where you people are coming from, but as Canadians, as fellow British Columbians, where did you get the idea that you could do this?

You've been called some pretty disrespectful names and compared to some pretty horrendous regimes from Chile and Germany and other places. I don't like to call names. When I was a little fellow I detested names, because they were so condemning and demeaning for me. I don't need to tell you what the names were; I just don't like name-calling. I think we should address problems objectively; we should show more respect for each other, and we shouldn't force people to react and confront us because we disregard their rights. We shouldn't force people to do that. This government has not only confronted those people over whom it has some jurisdiction by virtue of its allocating funds for those programs that maintain their services, but it has offended fundamental traditions upon which we all rely to avoid going after each other's throats. You must be intelligent and sensitive enough to know what you are doing. It's no accident if you are going to deny the rights of people who are not criminals and have committed no offence. The only offence they've committed is trying to do their job, and suffering the humiliation and disgrace of being classed as not being productive by irresponsible statements from politicians.

What are those people going to do? Quietly disappear? Do you think those people are going to just say: "Thank you. That was a bad break, but I can see what you are doing. This is your restraint program to save dollars. It makes a whole lot of sense"? That's not going to happen, and it makes no sense. Those people are going to do more than that. They're going to lose their respect for due process and the fundamental traditions we believe in, which keep us together and cooperating and trusting in each other, and generally allow us to carry on with some of the virtues that we all would like — to work together to try to architecturally design a society that will demonstrate that it is possible for people to live together, not in confrontation but in cooperation, intelligently doing so because we know the consequences of doing otherwise. We will all be finding out about the consequences in British Columbia very soon.

Do you realize how many people you have affected directly? We've been estimating that there are something like 200,000 to 300,000 people by the time you go from the government right down to the municipalities and the agencies and organizations affected by this legislation. Do you realize how many people you are doing that to, and do you mean to tell me that you are not yet aware of the serious error you have made? It must have been an error, because I'm giving you credit for having been intelligent. The mistake that you've made is not just against the people of British Columbia; it's against the movement of democracy right across the world. That's what you've done.

We've had several people stand up over there and say it takes a lot of courage. I think that was referred to in the throne speech and in the budget. "It takes courage. We are leading. We are going to lead out of the recession. British Columbia will be hailed the world over." What for?

Some of our members have a great deal of difficulty being able to listen to the remarks made by some of these people who seem to be totally insensitive and even arrogant, even now as people are organizing and demonstrating. Schoolteachers, professional people in the helping professions — these people are actually catcalling even at this late point. You say it's good government. What about those British Columbians you are providing good government for? Do you know how many people will lose their homes and will be unable to feed their families in another two or three months, and will be out on the streets? People who themselves were helping others, the unemployed and social assistance recipients, are now going to be joining them in those lines, and there are already 200,000 of them on the streets in British Columbia. If you get 25 percent of those you intend to, in the next year we'll have 300,000 people on the streets. The only thing that they will have to look forward to will be subsistence on social assistance — which your government has, for some strange reason, increased. That's one of the increases in your budget. I didn't say you increased the rates; you just increased the amount — in other words, anticipating the doubling of the units, as you call them: the people, recipients, persons, families and children.

[4:00]

What's really going to happen? Why didn't you give us an analysis? Why didn't you tell us you had in place a research department that analyzed all services in the government, and that you could come to us with your fancy computers and say: "Here, we are making these cuts rationally. We've debated them in caucus and have determined that they are in line with advice from the best economic and social advisers

[ Page 342 ]

throughout the community. We've had the benefit of public input, and they agree that we have to have a restraint program; it is rational, it will be systematic and done in an orderly manner." Not just the rhetoric we've received from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) in his letter to the staff, but the fact that "we are doing this."

Right from the start the opposition has stated that restraint in all sectors of society — public and private — is necessary, but not an irrational, reckless approach with no understanding for the consequences. What's going to happen when you start to withdraw people? It is rumoured.... I say "rumoured, " because there are no facts. All we have is a bill that is not yet proclaimed, a bill that until recently was used as the basis for letting people go. You let 400 people go from the public service, another 22 from the human rights branch and commission. It is rumoured that you will be letting 500-plus go from the Ministry of Human Resources. We have been asking in the Legislature who those people are, what their jobs are, from what regions of the province they will be withdrawn, and whether these terminations will have an adverse impact on existing services. We don't have a clue; we don't know.

We would hope you would be able to assure this House that when you remove family service workers, for instance, those specialists who work with families.... By the way, there are some 8,000 such families currently on social assistance or under care. Most of them, some 6,000, are in homes; another 2,500 are in foster care homes and other institutions throughout the community. What's going to happen to those people? Is it going to be the reckless abandon of families? What about those children needing protection under the family and children's services legislation? What's going to happen to the many children referred to as "children at risk," in the vernacular of the social worker? Have you documentation to clarify your plan to remove child-abuse teams, and in what regions? What will be the consequences? What's going to happen to the family court? What's going to happen to those court orders made on behalf of these children, and where will they go? These are serious questions.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Over the weekend I met with a number of people in the community — social workers, social worker aides, different paraprofessionals from all walks of life, and ordinary taxpayers. It is no rumour; people are frightened. One Human Resources worker came to my home and said: "Emery, I wouldn't want to bother you, but I understand you are going to be the critic for Human Resources. I just want to tell you that you should phone my office and hear the way those people reply. Their voices are quivering. They say: 'Hello, this is Human Resources. What can we do for you?' " I know that won't come out right in Hansard, but I'll tell you it's a pretty sad tone that you've created. Truly, there are shock waves, and justifiably so. What you have done is incomprehensible. It's difficult for a civilized person to be tame and control himself, but I think those of us in this Legislature have a duty to try to be rational and pay attention to the people and what they are saying.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when that man came to my home and shared those remarks with me, he was broken-hearted. He's a hard-working person. He said: "What do we do? Where do we go? What's going to happen? Who goes next?" I said: "It's a sad day but I don't know what I can do for you. You know the government has a five-year mandate. I could certainly get outlandish and accuse them of having duped the public, but any time a politician starts speaking in those kinds of derogatory terms, people seem to think they are just doing it because of their political bias, and they have no credibility."

I'm calling no names. You've already condemned yourselves; I don't have to call you names. The public knows what you're doing. In fact, many of the people who voted for you understand it better than I do. I don't need to call you any names; I'm merely telling you what is going on out on the street. You can do what you wish. I'm here to work on behalf of the public and tell it as I see it; to try to express to you the feelings that are out there. You should care about these public servants, for no other reason than that you yourself might have been them. In fact, many of your friends are some of those people. You should do it out of common decency. It should be very difficult for you to become signatories to a piece of legislation that would be so heinous, so mean, so vicious, so insensitive, so uncaring and so really indescribable. It is no accident when you get international bodies and institutions protesting this action. It is no accident that the federal government is beginning to wonder if it has a role to play. It's no accident that so many organizations are beginning to form to create something very similar to Poland's Solidarity. It's happening. Quite frankly, I'm relieved that it's happening, because it indicates to me that the public really does care about the democratic process. They really do care about these fundamental principles.

I know that in your polling information you were led to believe the contrary, because this was a design based on taking advantage of people's insecurities — something that has been promoted and marketed by those purveyors of hate who really believe that it's a good product that is exploitable and can be used. You know what I mean, because that is the way the materialistic, capitalistic, monetarist society that we live in tends to go. It goes that way because we convince the people that the money — the dollar — is the only thing that matters, notwithstanding the fact that the money and the dollars mean nothing if they have no value to the people. If it can do nothing for the people, what difference does it make? It's all relative. Any businessman will tell you that, any banker will tell you that, and any car dealer will tell you that he doesn't care about the total cost; he's looking for the bottom line: "What's my profit? What's my margin? What will go into my pocket?" That's all he cares about.

So don't tell me anything about your concern for people and that you cannot afford to keep this society healthy and together, and show some care and responsibility. What you're doing is forcing people to go back to their animal nature. We call it the survival of the fittest, but there's no such thing in contemporary society. These people have long since lost the ability to survive. They lost it because we're now living in a society in which they depend on each other. We're not an agrarian society where people can go out and till the soil — get a piece of land and work it and use their own hands and their own skills and abilities. We don't have that any more. We've long since lost that. We've been told to sell the farmland, get rid of it, build some houses, put everybody downtown, get some supermarkets, feed them some pills, lock them up, and then we can control them. That's what's happened.

So don't tell me about people being able to make it on their own. They can't do it. Governments have to have

[ Page 343 ]

responsibilities. You say: "It's interventionist. We want to leave it to the fair marketplace." Well, hell, it's a jungle out there. You've got no consumer protection. You don't want to give people proper health care or education, you don't want to inform them of their rights, you don't want to tell them how to participate in the democratic process, you don't want them to know what's going on with their government or with yourselves. And you don't want them involved in anything. Those who do get a job, you want to scare the hell out of them. What kind of people are you?

I get angry. I can tell you — even though I'd like to be objective — that I get personal, because that's what it's all about. I'm a person. I'm an MLA, but I'm also a person — a human being — just like everybody else. I take personal offence on behalf of the people — and on behalf of you people too, if you don't have sense enough to realize what you're doing. You're destroying the future for your children, for your neighbours, for everyone. Hell, people, what you're doing is impossible to believe. "No cause." Dismiss people without cause and then your right of appeal.... And then tell them: "If you don't like it, sue me. Take me to court." The courts are filled up, and you can't get in. If you did get in, it's going to cost you a fortune. You'd have to go and borrow the money from somebody who wants to rip you off, because you probably couldn't get a first-rate loan. You'd probably have to get a second or third at about 15 percent or 20 percent for something risky like going to court. This is a sham! You don't care. You never have. I think the public's beginning to see it. The days of talking about the conspiracy of socialists and communists are over.

Quite frankly, you know, the people really don't care any more. They want to be able to live during their lifetimes with some peace and some dignity. That's what they want. They don't want you to give them slogans and all this business: "Watch those guys. They're bad for you. We're the nice guys. We'll take care of everything." You sure will.

We're only talking about Bill 3. We're not talking about the removal of the Human Rights Code and what you're going to do by eliminating the Greater Vancouver Regional District. You know the implications of that planning program; you've centralized virtually everything in this province under yourselves. I cannot imagine anyone having any understanding about the nature of society today wanting to take on that responsibility anyway. You people must be masochists. Why would you want that big job — to run everything yourselves? You know, true democrats would give everyone a chance to share in the politics and the decision-making. It makes a lot of sense.

You people are going to run everything yourselves, and you expect people to sit back quietly and let you do it, in this day and age, the way the world is. The dissention is.... Why do you think people protest? Why do you think there were 60,000 people walking across the bridge over to Sunset Beach during the election? Why? They're telling you something. You say: "Oh, it doesn't matter, we've got the power. We don't care." Well, don't you care about yourselves as human beings? What's so important to you that you've got to bludgeon and be mean and brutal to these people, that you can't back off and listen and look people straight in the eye and say: "Hey, look, yeah, maybe you've got something to say"? This is their government, you know.

People have lost hope in government; they've lost hope in people who talk out of the side of their mouths. These people probably would not like to be dishonest but are themselves a product of such a cynical society that they have lost the ability to be reasonable and to understand. You people are handicapped; you should have some protection yourselves. You have a serious emotional, psychological and intellectual disability. You don't understand the whole idea of the parliamentary process.

The whole idea of this thing is to involve these beautiful people of British Columbia, not to alienate them. They want to be involved and they're desperately trying to get involved. If you were to give them the enthusiasm that you should on a good working team, you would get ten times as much out of them. Right now most of them are not even productive. Most of them are sitting shivering in their boots and afraid to say anything out of line, and you can believe that if they did say anything under your legislation they would be gone. That's the kind of society we will have if we allow you to get through with Bill 3: a society that has been confiscated by deceptive means during an election. I don't think there's a single British Columbian who would really want you to do what you're doing, and I don't think that you people yourselves....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You stand and tell me that you believe it is correct that you should fire people without due cause, without access to justice and without appeal. You stand and tell it to everyone on the streets — tell it to your own children. We have not heard any defence. The Premier himself, unfortunately I think, has found himself victimized by forces far greater than he could ever understand. I don't blame him. I think he's doing the best he can with what he's equipped with. But I can tell you that somebody is moving somebody, because that man has yet to stand in this House and successfully defend this legislation. In fact, I've heard very little credible debate with respect to justifying how they could violate our freedoms and rights under our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No, there's no question about it. You people are not the real government; your advisers are the real government.

[4:15]

Do you know why I think it all happened? I think it all happened because the people were going to defeat the Social Credit Party at the last election. I think the polls told you that, and I think you got desperate and said: "We've got to get rid of those people once and for all. How do we do it? We get the big money behind us and sell our souls to the devil. We promise them everything and anything — just get us elected and then we'll kill them. We guarantee you they'll never come back to haunt you again. We're going to destroy all access to justice. We will make sure they never, ever come back again." That's what you're doing.

But, you know, notwithstanding all the things you are attempting to do, this is a democratic society. As far as I am concerned you have fired those people illegally. You have not fired those people under any statute that I know of. You certainly can't fire them under the Public Service Restraint Act, because it's not passed yet. It hasn't even passed second reading. So on what basis are you doing it? You say you are paying them severance pay, but you tell them they are not allowed to leave the job; they've got to be available to help have an orderly windup. Are they working or not working? There are some problems with what you are trying to do. You had several meetings to tell the Ministry of Human Resources workers that you are going to advise them who would be laid

[ Page 344 ]

off last Friday, and then again today. Both of those meetings were cancelled. Maybe you began to realize that there's something wrong, and you can't do it anymore. What's happening? In the meantime, what about these people? They don't know what their status is.

Well, I don't think I can convince you. I just wanted to express to you that the public are on to you. They're on to you, and you'll be hearing from them. You have probably already been hearing from them. As far as I'm concerned it's a great opportunity for us to begin to show how really fragile and delicate this so-called democracy really is. I would just close by saying to those of you who have not yet read Justice Tom Berger's book, Fragile Freedoms, I would recommend it for weekend reading.

In light of the fact that none of the Social Credit people seem to be anxious to get on their feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you an idea of some of the problems. Take the family services to homes. This is speculation. I would like to be more specific about what the impact would be. Do you know what is involved in supporting one family? Do you know how many members of different teams are involved? Counsellors, social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, job training — the kind of programs that can only happen through the specialized training of people who are committed to the very difficult job of working in families, and who have become frustrated as a result of the competition in trying to make a living in society. Many of those people may well be working right now but will be needing service themselves. It's a difficult thing to talk about in the abstract; in the next few days we'll probably have some cases of people who are becoming distraught by their anticipation of waiting around two or three months while the government decides whether they stay or go. The pressures will filter down through the family, on the members of the family, on the community, on their ability to perform their services with some sense of enthusiasm. They call it low morale — something that perhaps is very advantageous if you're trying to take advantage of someone. If you can keep them low, the next thing you know you can recommend to them that their self-esteem is down and that's where it should stay, that they should listen to you and you'll show them the way back to recovery. But what good is talking about economic recovery when people themselves are losing their ability to participate, the opportunity to be part of the future?

I would like to challenge the government. You know, there's always some hope. One of the greatest virtues that man can have, it seems to me, is the ability to reconsider and to recognize the error of his ways and to be able to recover from a misguided direction and say: "Hey, let's turn this thing around. Let's come clean." Surely you do not intend to pursue this course of action. Surely you do not really believe that you are doing the right thing by telling people who are handicapped with various disabilities, the various ethnic groups in this community who you yourselves know do not have equal opportunities in the job place or for that matter just in many of the amenities in society.... Surely you're not telling those people that if they don't like what is happening they can go to court. Is that really what we're down to now? I'm referring specifically to the removal of the Human Rights Commission and replacing it with a five-person council under the Minister of Labour, under a new revised Human Rights Code. Do you realize what an offence this is going to be? I ask you. It's one of those situations that just leave one almost pleading for some understanding.

I can't go out on the streets and tell people what I can do as a politician other than talk to you. They themselves are saying: "What are we going to do? Who do we go to, now that we have a complaint?" I say, "Well, you can go to the minister." "The minister's not taking phone calls. Is there a bureaucrat around that we can call? What do we do? We had a fellow tell us that we can't use this facility because he doesn't like us, but we feel we should have access to that facility." Well, that's too bad; you can take him to court. But there was a time when you could go to a human rights officer and by law could expect a proper inquiry and a report so that you could at least ensure that the person who was denying you your rights was doing so unknowingly, or if he was doing it deliberately you would have redress. But now the burden of proof is on you and me every time we feel that our rights have been offended, wherever those rights may be inscribed. There'll be a great deal of difficulty trying to find where those rights are — under what legislation.

Not being an expert on the terminology used by lawyers in dressing up legislation, I will simply say that it's interesting that you created some new terms. You've removed from the Human Rights Code "reasonable cause." Why would you do that? And yet you state that: "you shall not discriminate against a person on the basis of physical disability for jobs or the right to facilities." But then you don't say: "...provided there is a reasonable cause, a reasonable explanation." That effectively means that the burden of proof is on you and you can't prove it. If the person says, "I didn't know I was doing it," or "I may have done it but it wasn't intentional," you're dead. Before, the burden of proof was the other way: you had to show reasonable cause and to make your own case. You can't do that now. You can be sure that that's all we need to get rid of people on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, age, language, colour, whether they wear a moustache or a turban — you name it — religion, political belief, social affiliations; any reason will do. We could go on to the new Residential Tenancy Act and find it all over again.

I just wanted to give you a general overview of some of the serious problems that you've created. I think that this is a very, very cynical and mean way to thank the public for electing you to a new five-year mandate.

I would now move that we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

[4:30]

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 27

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 345 ]

MR. ROSE: I hope that that thunderous ovation doesn't subtract from my time, because I'm certain to need all of my 40 minutes to tell everybody what a vile piece of legislation this is. Perhaps for the sake of the gallery I should explain what's going on here. Some of them might be interested in knowing, because what we're doing here must seem rather crazy. One side gets up and speaks all the time, and every 40 minutes the other side comes in. They don't say anything; they don't take part in the debate; all they do is sit there. They don't even pay attention. We're trying to convince them of the error of their ways, and they don't even listen.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the gallery, that what we're doing here is an example of democracy in action. That is, we're trying to preserve democracy. If we let this bill go through, there'll be lots of action, but there won't be any democracy. So in a parliamentary democracy, if you have a majority and a minority, if it comes to a vote, the majority always wins. This is known as the tyranny of the majority.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: A little higher. It sounds like an E flat to me.

So what can we in the minority — the sort of beaten, intimidated members of the opposition; 22 to 35 — do in order to prevent this horrendous rape of people's rights from going through? We have to keep talking. We want to keep talking so that people will understand what's going on here, so that the people out there whose rights have been stolen will have an opportunity to find out. They can't do it because you're trying to whistle it by them — that's what you're trying to do. What's the hurry? We have a two-day budget debate — it's supposed to be ten — then in comes Bill 3. What's the rush? Why did we interrupt Mr. Curtis? Where has he gone? Doesn't he want his budget passed? Why do we have to have Bill 3 through? That's hard to say, but why do we have to have Bill 3 through in such a hurry? I don't understand it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it.

MR. ROSE: Read it? I've read it and wept, but I'd like to hear you get up and defend it. Your only maiden speech I've heard so far is you introducing somebody in the gallery.

MR. BARRETT: He even got that wrong.

MR. ROSE: Yes, he even got that mixed up. As a heckler, if you had twice as many brains, you'd be a Whip.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, shall we address the Chair?

MR. ROSE: I was a bit harsh, Mr. Speaker, and it was kind of a quip. There are lots of things I could have said in here — I have Beauchesne here. I didn't say, for instance, that the member was coming into the world by accident. I didn't say he was a parliamentary babe and suckling. Those things would have been out of order. I didn't say that he was disgracing the House or talking twaddle.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: If I'd said something like that, Mr. Speaker, I think you would have had a perfect right to rule me out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I do at this time, too, hon. member, because we cannot do by one means what we cannot do by another. I'm sure that if the member reflects upon that, he will see why and continue with the debate in question.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I didn't have a gentleman such as the minister across the hall to provoke me. He was further than two sword lengths away, and a good thing too.

The people in the public service have received a shower of pink slips based on not one shred of authority. They have been fired; they've been pink-slipped; they've been warned; they've been.... I think they've been burned. I can think of other words that I could have used here, but it would have been unparliamentary. I would like to ask: on what authority have these layoff notices been given? We haven't passed Bill 3, which takes away all their rights.

What are we saving, in terms of money? We are not saving any money, because these people are going to be paid until at least the end of September. But they're not on their jobs, they're not in their offices and they're not serving the public.

Why are we doing this to these people? What's the rush? I don't understand this. I think — and I hate to say this, because I don't like to say harsh things to people — it has to do with being vindictive. I think it has to do with warning people not to get too smart, or else they could lose their jobs. I think that's what it is all about, and I think that beneath that there is no respect for public servants; there is no respect for the people who work for government.

If you work for a private company, or you spend money on a private company, that's good; but if you spend money on a public service, that's somehow bad. Apparently the only people who get respect from the Social Crediters are those people who meet a payroll. That's what we hear all the time: "The only way you're any good is if you can meet a payroll." Now that rules out a lot of very important men. Jesus Christ is ruled out on that one — he didn't meet a payroll. And, you're going to say, look at what happened to him. What about Charles Dickens? He didn't meet a payroll either. Beethoven. Rembrandt. They didn't meet payrolls.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You don't think they were in the public service? They were all living under patronage. They might as well have been Social Crediters.

What's happening here in Bill 3, Mr. Speaker, is that it completely destroys bargaining in the public service in this province.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look, the happiness boys are all over there. All the gloom-and-doomers are on this side of the House, and the happiness boys are all over there.

MR. REID: You got it.

[ Page 346 ]

MR. ROSE: You got it, Pontiac. If you are so great, why are we in such tough shape and why do we need so much restraint? That's what I would like to know.

If you're a public servant and you have no job security, and you can't bargain for wages, and you can't bargain for working conditions, why on earth would you need a public service union? You don't. It's out to destroy that, and the BCTF, and all the unions that are in the public service or the municipal service. That's what is behind it. If they get away with it, other super-right-wing jurisdictions in Canada will adopt it. That is what the fight is all about and that is why we're delaying it. We want people to know it. That's what I want the gallery to know; I'm sure that they'll hear.

If it was a temporary thing for some specific reason, I could perhaps accept a bit of it. I can't even find this bill; it's so bad I can't find it — somebody is suggesting that I'm not very well-organized — but I know what it does. Bill 3 requires everybody from water boards.... Here's the schedule on the back. Look at how pervasive it is: no bargaining, no job security, dismissal without cause, no due process. Let me read this shocking list. I hope that you remember this, Mr. Speaker. We've done in the first part of it — all the public service, all the municipalities, school teachers, university and college teachers, Community Care Facility Act people, hospital workers, hospital insurance workers and the Library Act. That's not enough. It's not enough to remove all the rights from all those people — that's too simple. Why don't we get the rest of them: the board of parks and recreation under the Vancouver Charter, B.C. Assessment Authority, B.C. Buildings Corporation, B.C. Development Corporation, B.C. Ferry Corporation.... Ferry workers are a little troublesome sometimes, so we'll get them too. Don't forget to get them, because some of them have been known to vote NDP.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. ROSE: Yes. I knew one who did. But it wasn't a captain. In some ridings he did pretty well. We've got quite a few members from ridings served by the B.C. Ferry Corporation — some of our best members.

B.C. Steamship Company, B.C. Systems Corporation. I thought we were going to get rid of all these things — B.C. Transit, B.C. Utilities Commission, bus drivers, capital hospital district, City of Vancouver, compensation stabilization commissioner.... Oh, good. He's got no job security. Wouldn't that be fine? Ed Peck now has no job security. He can be fired without cause. That'd be all right. Greater Campbell River Water District, Greater Nanaimo Water District. I've got a little advice for all these people. Anybody who works — and I've only read about half of them, that's how pervasive it is — for those authorities should join the Social Credit Party right away. It accomplishes two things. First of all, if there's likely to be any hit-list, they're carrying a card and they're okay. See? The other thing is that they can go to the nominating conventions and vote some of the candidates out. That'd be all right, eh? They have a lot of candidates over there in West Van.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: You need more, eh? Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we can make some light of this, but it's extremely serious for those people. It's nervous time. Is that what you're trying to create? That's what disturbs us. You see, we've had 25 years of trying to build safety nets under people and provide some security, because it's civilized, dignified and is right, and with one stroke of the pen we're going to remove all that. From whom? From the people who work for us. That's really nice. For what purpose? The bottom line.

[4:45]

Anyway, they say: "Well, no, we're not going to do that, because, after all, we've got regulations in here. We've got some regulations that prevent that." I'll read these regulations under "Regulations respecting terminations" — it sounds so final, doesn't it? It's like having a terminal illness. It says here: "The criteria referred to in subsection (2) may include skills, abilities, qualifications, operational requirements and efficiency, seniority of employment and seniority provisions of the collective agreement." They may include — it doesn't say they will. It doesn't say when the regulations are going to come down; it just says "may include." Well, Mr. Speaker, that does not make people very comfortable. They can be fired without cause. Why? Public servants can be fired now. There's nothing that I know of that prevents them from being fired for just cause. Why would anybody want to be able to fire them without cause? I just don't understand that, unless it's what I suggested.

I think the private sector people better watch out as well. Because if this goes through for the public sector, the private sector is next on the list to be beaten down. It'll be the end of it for them as well.

Mr. Speaker, is this all for restraint? I don't think it's all for restraint. I don't think it's for restraint at all. I don't even think the issue is restraint; I think the issue is one of liberty. Let's pretend that I am a hospital worker and would like to take part, as is my right, in the political process — it's more than my right, it's guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — to express my views about things. Suppose I stick my neck out and express my views about a particular matter. Am I then going to be singled out for the hit-list? Suppose I'm a shop steward for the ferry workers and I would like to speak my mind, as is guaranteed in the Charter. Am I suddenly going to be laid off?

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. ROSE: How do I know? I have no protection.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look, I know what that does — that gives jobs for lawyers. Now what poor beaten person, who's perhaps an immigrant, is going to be able to hire a lawyer and fight it on the Human Rights Code? Besides, you'll probably bring in "notwithstanding" parts for these various sections too that protect people. That's what we're frightened of. That's why we're talking. That's why we intend to delay this as long as we can.

Suppose we were a municipal planning office. My colleague from Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) and I were both honoured by sharing the same council, at different times. From time to time people came in for rezoning. I think my colleague is well aware of that. Sometimes people want to get a sewerage system septic field passed, and a health officer is around.

If you can be fired without just cause, and you have the fear within you that if you made a wrong decision and

[ Page 347 ]

offended somebody in power of that political stripe in government — it doesn't matter which stripe it is — wouldn't you be a little bit concerned about that? Wouldn't you be a little bit concerned that perhaps you might have made the wrong decision or that you might risk making the wrong decision? I think it is the appearance and the intimidation of this legislation that's so frightening.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I'll read you the Charter of Rights. One of the things I have been very proud of in my political career is that I was in Ottawa at two periods of tremendous importance to the country. One was terrible: it was called the War Measures Act. Others in this House might have been in the House at that time. We imposed the War Measures Act because of terrorism in Quebec. Ninety-two percent approved of that action the first week; 8 percent didn't. Now ask anybody what they think of the War Measures Act. At the stroke of a pen people's liberties were removed and, what's worse, they approved of it then. So if you think you're going great guns on this and that you're going to win a lot of Brownie points from people out there who hate civil servants.... I talked to a man in a store the other day who said: "They're all lazy. Get rid of them. They're no good." He doesn't know that what we have here is hospital workers, nurses, health inspectors and people who protect us — policemen and firemen. He doesn't need them because "they're all lazy and useless."

The other thing was the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Here's what clause 2 says: "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion." As my colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) said a little earlier, if I've got freedom of conscience and religion, and I happen to wear a turban, and I've got a bigot in charge of me, who happens to be my boss, and I can be fired without just cause, then I better take my turban off. That Charter of Rights isn't much help to me there, is it? Not a bit.

I'm a native Indian and I need a room somewhere or I want to drink in a particular beer parlour and I'm a member of a visible minority; I don't have that right.

MR. REE: You're protected by the Human Rights Act.

MR. ROSE: What human rights act? The one you're going to get rid of? You're going to get rid of the Human Rights Code.

MR. REE: It's Bill 27.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I know. The five-member council probably made of Socreds, which is the greatest thing since sliced bread, according to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland). I've heard his songs before.

Here's (b) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. Okay? If I want to join a political party and speak on a particular cause — it may be women's rights, affirmative action or anything.... I've got no job security; I'm a policeman or fireman or I work for a water board. If somebody doesn't like what I have to say, I'm gone. They blow me away. I'm finished. I have to bring an action, don't I? I have to hire one of you guys to bring an action in order to protect myself.

We need this protection of job security in our contracts. You people are trying to remove it, and then you tell us to hire a lawyer. I don't understand that. Well, it might be considered enlightened self-interest. There's no appeal granted; hire a lawyer.

I think Bill 3 is really an assault on our fundamental freedoms. I think that going back — the lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong; even if I'm not wrong they'll try to correct me — into our history of common law there is the tradition of the right of the accused to face his accuser. It seems to me that that is well established in our British tradition. So if I'm going to be fired I should have the right to face my accuser and ask: "Why am I fired? Who fired me, and for what cause?" That's a fundamental freedom. If you remove that freedom, you've taken away my liberty. It's too fragile and has taken too many centuries to build up to have it taken away at the stroke of a pen.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I exaggerate, you say. Well, I would rather exaggerate on that side of it and fight for something that I believe in. I don't think it's just ideological; I think it's anti-democratic. I think a person has the democratic right, whether he works for a public institution or a private one, to face his accuser and be told why he was fired. There's a feeling around that you can't fire people. I don't know anybody except perhaps tenured university professors who can't be fired, and you can fire some of them as well.

That's another issue. Why do we have tenures? Just to give the fat cats a nice cushy job?

MR. REID: Yes, that's why they have it.

MR. ROSE: You didn't bridle at that. Sorry, but you don't understand about this. What that's all about is academic freedom: the freedom of people who work in institutions of higher learning to have the opportunity to express themselves, like that ferry worker, without fear and without favour. That's why it's there. Is there too much of it? Is it misused sometimes? Sure it is. But you've got to do a little bit of documenting; you can't just say that. You've got to have more than just your prejudices.

I've got a little quote for you. More than two centuries ago, Jean Jacques Rousseau said: "Good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad ones bring about worse." Could there be worse laws coming? Watch out, I say. If we don't fight this one, watch out for the next one. People have the right to resist unjust laws. The Americans revolted because of unjust laws, and thousands in British Columbia have thrilled to the story of Gandhi. It's been playing in theatres all over the province — all over the world. What did Gandhi do? He saw an oppressive, colonial South African government that treated him and his people with the utmost disregard, and he fought them by civil disobedience. It was his right and his duty, even if it meant fasting, going to jail or being killed — which he ultimately was. The greatest man in this century. How did he become great? Did he knuckle under because some claptrap law was dreamed up by some Brits who wanted to oppress or get even with some people? No. He fought it, and he's one of the great heroes of the twentieth century.

[ Page 348 ]

I've got another little quote for you. It's on the mast-head of the Globe and Mail. Junius, a Roman lawyer, said: "The subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." Our old friend and well-known conservative, Edmund Burke, said that evil will triumph when good men do nothing. We're not going to stand around here and do nothing. We're going to fight it with all our power. We're going to put up all our troops, and when you blow them away, we'll take them out and revive them, and bring them back in to fight some more.

We've talked about rights and freedoms and social issues, vindictiveness and oppression — all those emotionally loaded words. I don't use the really emotionally loaded words. I don't like to use words like "fascist" and "Nazi," that sort of thing, because I don't think they're credible. I don't think these are particularly evil people over here. I think they sincerely believe they're trying to solve a particular problem. They have their own motivations, the same as we do. There's no question about that. I don't like terms like that, particularly because I don't think people believe them when they hear them.

I want to tell you a little story. A young teacher approached me last weekend and said: "We're planning to have our house renovated. Should I get a mortgage?" I said: "Look, I don't think you should do anything; build that renovation when you've got the money. Tuck those bucks in your sock and when you've got the money then go ahead with the renovation. It's really scary out there right now and you may not have a job, because 25,000 to 103,000 are going to be out. O-U-T, out. Not just by attrition.

Interjection.

[5:00]

MR. ROSE: Don't give me that nonsense about ability to pay. You've got all kinds of money for the things you want to spend money on. No problem at all. All kinds of money for that sort of stuff.

I don't think she's going to proceed with this renovation, so the carpenter doesn't get a job. The guy who sells ready-mix, isn't either, because we decided not to go ahead with the renovations. The guy who sells lumber....

MR. REID: He's closed out.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I don't think you're right up on it, because the export market.... It's a bubble right now, but it's better than it has been for a long time.

MR. REID: Is that right?

MR. ROSE: I'm told that by reliable sources. I don't think it's going to last long, but I'm not the happiness boys over there. I'm a gloom-and-doomer; you guys are the happiness boys. The sunshine boys are all over there.

The guy who sells lumber, the logger, the mill worker, the nail manufacturer, the guy who sells glass and doors and all that building stuff — they're not going to have that business, because it's fearful out there. So the advice to the policeman is....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, the provincial government is scaring them. They're saying the recovery is fragile. They got that from Allan Gregg of Decima, the corporation; they got all kinds of little pet words like "restraint" and "earn our way out of the recovery." On the backs of whom? Allan Gregg told you what to say — or R.B. Bennett told you.

So the policeman or the school teacher decides not to have a renovation. Where do you think the money ever comes from? It comes from the resources of the people. That's where all wealth comes from. It doesn't come from hot air. The policeman is not going to buy a new car. Now I know that is going to be serious because a lot of people in this House sell cars. So he doesn't buy a new car. The prison guard doesn't buy a new fridge. The nurse doesn't buy a new washer and dryer. The guy at the liquor store who wanted to go on holiday decides not to buy the camper, and so the tourist people in the Okanagan are screaming — the rain is bad enough, but they're screaming. The hospital employee wanted to buy a new house.... The day that budget came out, I'm told by the real estate industry in Victoria, the deals stopped. Now they might have sprung back now, but if there's that climate of fear.... All those lazy people who worked for the civil service are not doing their jobs and are taking all that money. They're not going to be spending it on cars, fridges, homes, renovations and all that sort of thing that would create more jobs, and if you think you've got a $117 million overrun this year, wait till you see what it's going to be next year. You're going to have restraint.

You don't want people working. You want them on unemployment insurance and welfare, that's what you want. Are they going to pay taxes? Are they going to make your budget...? I know what you've done. You've underestimated your revenue and overestimated your spending, so that you can come out smelling like a rose. But I don't believe that. I think you're deliberately doing that. You multiply this business of what happened to that school teacher or the policeman 250,000 times in our society, and what's going to happen to sales? What's going to happen to their families? They're not going to spend the money, because they're frightened. You need consumer confidence to get us out of this mess we're in. So much for a consumer-led recovery. Four out of ten households have somebody out of work in them.

We've seen, Mr. Speaker, that we've gone from a generation of people who were secure and confident to a generation now where there's fear out there: eviction without notice, dismissal without cause, the rentalsman's out. We're going to let the marketplace regulate everything. Why do you think we have these laws if the marketplace is so benign and it regulates everything? Does the marketplace regulate northeast coal? There's the minister over there; he'd tell you that. It needed a little help, didn't it? The marketplace wouldn't have done it by itself. Now I know the Japanese are going to whipsaw you around a little bit between northeast coal and southeast coal, and I know you don't want any Japanese car assembly plants here, because you don't believe in sourcing. I've heard you say that. You think if we have an auto plant in here that they're not going to buy any coal from us. We'll get tough on that. I can't believe the minister wouldn't want a Toyota assembly plant here. Australia has one, Brazil has one, Mexico has one, and the United States has one, but the minister doesn't want one here. He said that's an eastern plot.

Consumerism is going to be slashed. Even the price of Life Savers has gone up already. The Human Rights Code, native housing.... Bigotry is in and human rights are out.

[ Page 349 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. ROSE: That's your opinion, sir; that's just your opinion. They say "nonsense," Mr. Speaker, but you know, I know that there is some minor association between the Socreds here in British Columbia and the Tories in Ottawa. But what did Walter Baker, a leading Tory, say the other day? "Oh, we wouldn't do that. We wouldn't pass legislation like that." Well, that's what I'm going to be telling them in the riding of Mission–Port Moody, that those federal Tories will pass legislation exactly like that. Where did you get the idea? Sinclair Stevens — 60,000 jobs in the civil service, that's where you got the idea. They'll do it exactly like this if they're given a chance.

What about Fairweather? He's a long-time member of the Conservative Party — a tremendously fine man — and he's head of the Human Rights Commission for Canada. He says: "This is madness. This is taking away our civil rights." I didn't say it. It wasn't some wild-eyed, radical, screaming socialist who said that. It was Walter Baker, former House Leader, friend of various ministers who go to the Tory convention. Oh, they're Socreds here, but they go across the border and then they're Conservatives. I don't know if they voted, but I know they were there. So what we have really is a social and economic War Measures Act — that's what we're fighting about. That's what Fairweather is concerned about, because Fairweather is no dummy. Fairweather is one of the most respected and dignified Canadians. He is an outstanding Canadian, in spite of the fact that he's a Tory. He's a tremendous man.

You know, there's some view that if we restrain enough and we don't spend any money, somehow we're going to be prosperous. I find that a little hard to believe, because the victims are all the people who are the weakest in society anyway. That, I think, is basically unfair. Look, I'll tell you what you do. First of all you freeze somebody's salary. Then everything he buys goes up. Inflation: rents go up, energy costs go up every six months, food costs go up, unemployment insurance premiums go up. And what's happened to him? His standard of living has gone down.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: The standard of living hasn't gone down for any one of us in this room. The people....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Well, I've been through all that with you guys before, and I'm getting tired of it. Look, 20 percent of the people in Canada get 40 percent of the income, and we're among those. The lower 20 percent get 4 percent of the income. They're the people you're hitting. You're not hitting people like us. You're not hitting people like the doctors or engineers.

MR. PARKS: Sales tax is progressive.

MR. ROSE: Sales tax is a regressive tax. You're damn right it's a regressive tax, because the rich pay the same tax as the poor.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a reversal of the traditions that we've had over the years. We've tried to build up a safe and humane society — not a society just for people who are lazy or don't want to do anything or don't want to work. We've tried to make the resources of the country produce a society that is a little bit more civilized and a little bit more compassionate. We're trying to do that. And we're not doing that sort of thing when we put forward a package of legislation like we have before us.

Mr. Speaker, I see you're leaning forward in a position as if you're about ready to spring. I certainly wouldn't want you to fall on top of the chair because I went on too long. I just wanted to say that....

AN HON. MEMBER: I had a good sleep, Mark.

MR. ROSE: I think the hon. member complimented me: he said that I made a good speech. It wasn't necessarily good, but it was long. Is that what he said? Good and long.

Now I want to read you a couple of quotes here. Oliver Goldsmith: "Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law." I thought that was appropriate. But if you like this, there are a lot of fundamentalists inside the Social Credit Party. I thought a biblical quote would be kind of nice — from Isaiah: "What mean ye, that you beat my people and grind the faces of the poor."

Mr. Speaker, it's not that I want to get off early, but I explained a little while ago to the gallery that we think this is vile, vicious, rotten legislation, and we're going to hold it up all we can. Therefore, in conclusion, I move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

[5:15]

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 26

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. NICOLSON: I rise to oppose Bill 3. I agree that something has to be done, considering the mess that this government has got this province into over the past few years, but I just happen to disagree with the remedy that's being proposed.

[ Page 350 ]

This bill is the result of the financial incompetence which has been the hallmark of this government since the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) took over from the former Minister of Finance, the former member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, Mr. Evan Wolfe. Since this present Minister of Finance has taken office, we have seen a steady erosion of the financial picture in British Columbia. If one were to look at the closing balance, the summary and the combined net equity under combined general and special funds in the year 1979-1980, Mr. Evan Wolfe — and, I might say, the present member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and, I might say, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett — had left to the care of that member who is just leaving the House $1.961 billion, about half of it in hard, cold cash, and the other half invested in interest-bearing accounts and special funds — whether it be the First Citizens' Fund or the Burrard Inlet third crossing rund or the other various special funds that have been in this province. That's what was left over after Mr. Evan Wolfe had completed his last budget; after he had paid all the bills, that's what was left in the bank account.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the next year the Minister of Finance budgeted for a surplus. He said that we'd probably end up with about a $350 million surplus, but instead we ended up expending $256.7 million more than we collected in revenues, and that balance shrunk to $1.7 billion. In 1981-1982 a further erosion of $181 million brought us down to $1.52 billion. Still, the province of British Columbia had a healthy bank account. But those were in mostly good economic times.

Today we are seeing an overreaction in Bill 3, in which the government is trying to make up for some of that fiscal incompetence, that failure to meet budget — a government that allowed certain services to grow out of control and then suddenly has found itself in this untenable, unmanageable position. That bank account took one heck of a beating in fiscal 1982-1983. In this budget it is reported that $978 million was spent in excess of revenue collected, bringing that balance down to $542 million. That's where we stand at the beginning of this fiscal year, and the minister has projected that we will spend $1.6 billion more than we're going to collect. That is going to bring us to a deficit position where we don't have a bank account or special funds any more. We have a deficit account of $1,060,900,000.

The Minister of Finance has been incompetent, arrogant and ignored warnings from this side of the House when we proposed reductions in expenditure in special areas. Mr. Speaker, in 1981-82 we proposed spending cuts of $82 million, and last year during the budget we proposed spending cuts of $76 million. Those were spending cuts which, ironically, were proposed in areas in which this year's budget shows that finally government has learned, regrettably, some of the lesson.

For the past two years we have proposed cuts in office furniture and equipment expense. Mr. Speaker, you might well remember some of those, and you might remember how you voted on those particular amendments proposed by the official opposition. This year I see that the government has finally listened to the official opposition. They're proposing a 54.9 percent cut in furniture and equipment, but that could have come a lot sooner. It could have come soon enough to stop this cutting of people's livelihoods and this unprecedented legislation, which takes away and denies normal civil justice. If the warning of the official opposition had been heeded, perhaps we would not have to be debating this drastic and extreme legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, we also proposed dramatic cuts in travel expenses. This year the government itself is cutting travel expenses by 28.9 percent in their budget. The government is proposing to cut by 19.75 percent — I think it could cut a lot more — in advertising and publications. Indeed, there are other areas where the government has not been prudent. Look at the reorganization of the Forests ministry, which I predicted would create a top-heavy bureaucracy. It created a lot of high-paid supernumerary positions. It eliminated the position of forest ranger, which was one of the most effective positions in the civil service. That led to the building occupancy charges of the Ministry of Forests rising in one year from $3.5 million to $10.5 million, and in a second year from $10.5 million to $19.5 million. Who is going to have to pay? We are going to see that clerks are going to be terminated.

That word "termination" is a horrible, horrible word. It sounds very permanent to me; it sounds very extreme. I have heard of other things being terminated. To me being terminated means being snuffed out as if you don't exist. It means being liquidated. It means that a person is no longer operative and it is sometimes very reminiscent of terminology used in books which were written about the future some time ago. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, it's the fiftieth anniversary this year of the self-elimination of the Reichstag in 1933, and we are now one year from 1984.

Two days prior to the election, there was a summary of the B.C. election scene. It was on a Spokane channel, KSPS. They mentioned how 60,000 people had already voted in British Columbia with their feet and left British Columbia because of the record-high unemployment. I imagine that those 60,000 people might not have voted for Social Credit had they remained in this province. I wonder how many more people are going to have to leave British Columbia, people who were even born and raised here or people who might have relocated themselves in terms of good, sound and secure employment in order to "better" themselves by accepting a position here in British Columbia.

The government was spending all kinds of money advertising in all of the journals and even eastern papers for a Planner 6 and an Accountant so-and-so and a Control Clerk 3 and so on only short months ago. Some of those people took those positions, moved themselves out here, gave up a good, secure bit of employment because they were ambitious and positive people and they thought they could improve their position. They come here, and they find themselves in the most disorganized, financially mismanaged, most catastrophic province.

We've got people leaving this province before this election, and now that we've had this election we're going to have more refugees from British Columbia. We're going to have our version of the Vietnamese boat people — people seeking to leave this province, taking the risk of whatever they might face beyond the borders, because they've found that in British Columbia there is no hope for them. They will take whatever the chances will be and go to other places in Canada or outside of Canada. I was born in British Columbia — one of the few, I suppose. I am and always will be a proud British Columbian, and it is for that reason that I feel a real sense of regret that people should have to make such decisions. I'm

[ Page 351 ]

sometimes so proud of British Columbia that one might accuse me of being parochial, and I sometimes can't help but speak with some over-enthusiasm, and at times I have to be reminded.... Maybe you're a guest in another province or country and you should recognize some of the good things there and not just be bragging about British Columbia all the time. This type of legislation will certainly give us in British Columbia something that we can point to, something that is unique, a measure which was brought about by a government that could think of nothing but spending its way into the next election, and now asks people in the public service — and in companion pieces of legislation asks people in McDonald's or anywhere else — to pay the price of that kind of indiscretion.

I've been going through summaries of legislation around the world, compiled by the International Labour Organization in Geneva. I've been looking at the type of legislation that's in place in other countries, and there are a few countries in which people simply have recourse to the courts for wrongful dismissal or dismissal without cause, but I haven't seen any mention in these books of any jurisdiction which prohibits an employer from signing and honouring an agreement that has provision for dismissal reasons, and that provides for dismissal only with cause — not one.

I wish that we were living in British Columbia after this becomes law; I would prefer that we were living under the legislation of Mexico. In Mexico, reasons have to be given for dismissal. Mexico, governed by the Partido Revolucionario Institucional, has often been characterized as being a one-party state, but Mexico does have provisions for dismissal. It even specifically prohibits people and provides special reviews if a person is dismissed and if that person has been active in union activities. It prohibits many types of dismissal, and really only allows certain types of dismissal such as prolonged absence from work or a physical or mental incapacity which has caused the person to no longer be qualified to do the work. In fact, Mexican labour legislation would give us something to look at.

Countries like France, both West Germany and East Germany, Panama.... Panama has legislative provisions for dismissal with cause and sets forth the reasons for which a person can be dismissed. Not only are we going to be without special protection here in British Columbia, but employers such as school boards, municipalities, police commissions and so on will be prohibited from honouring sections of their collective agreements. So I think we can say that the likes of this piece of legislation will not be found in Chile, the Soviet Union, China, Uruguay, Paraguay or the United States — in any jurisdiction in the world.

The Premier thinks he has a mandate, getting 50.1 percent, as opposed to some 45 percent for the NDP, that gives him the right now by which he is seeking to set an example for all of Canada. In other words he is saying that this legislation should be an example for all of Canada. It should start as a wildfire here in British Columbia, burn its way over the Rocky Mountains to Alberta, on to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and then into the maritime provinces. This legislation should move its way eastward. There was a leader who called for a drive to the east — the "Drang nach Osten." Mr. Speaker looks perplexed. It means "the drive to the east," in which one jurisdiction, not content with having inflicted its will upon its own subjects, sought to inflict its will other subjects beyond its borders, beyond its competency, and beyond any mandate that it might ever have had.

This legislation is the legislation of people who have allowed many.... Many? One wonders who has been government in this province for the last seven and one-half years while government has become stagnated, and overburdened and multiple- layered with multiple-layered bureaucracies, commissions, bureaus etc. What government has brought in a whole bunch of new Crown corporations, such as B.C. Buildings Corporation, B.C. Systems Corporation? Who has been the government that allowed the reorganization of the Forests ministry to gobble up huge amounts of administrative capital just to put a roof over the head of the Ministry of Forests? It's been the same government that now says that we have to fire all these people.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Forests who interjects, nobody can justify an expenditure that goes from $3.5 million to $10.5 million to $19.5 million in just two years, to put a roof over people's heads; and now there's nobody to sit under that roof. There are already cutbacks in the forests ministry which are inhibiting the private sector, which are holding up cut blocks from being approved and keeping loggers out of the woods, which are keeping the private sector hamstrung; and now this government wants to put more people out of work so that we can cause further constipation in this particular economy here in British Columbia.

A minister, instead of fighting for his ministry, would fight for his own job, and as long as his own job is secure he will preside over the dismantling and further disruption not only of the ministry, because the ministry isn't important, but of the industry and the economy. The total benefit to British Columbia is the important thing; and that's why a Ministry of Forests is needed in this province.

MR. COCKE: He won't speak in this bill.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't think that minister will get up and speak on this bill about the spending cuts. He must certainly know that this is not cutting just fat; this is cutting muscle and bone. If the ministry serves any purpose, it must be to stimulate and assist the broader economy of British Columbia, to assist the forest industry and thereby create jobs, to stimulate government revenues. But we don't hear anything being said. Most of the ministers over there remain mute, while we cut into areas that go beyond any kind of partisan interest.

I was out talking with senior ministry officials before the budget was brought down. Before the throne speech I made a point, as I always do, of going around and getting some of the latest information, a status report. This year it was more in the form of a crisis report.

We don't see the resignation of the Minister of Finance for having blown $2 billion since he took over the office. No, he's going to ask that 25 percent of the quarter of a million public employees in this province, about 67,000 persons, give up their jobs so that the Minister of Finance can keep his.

Lord Carrington made a very small slip-up but Lord Carrington resigned his position over the Falklands crisis. Here we see a trend set not over one simple little incident, but one that went on for four years. It led to the loss of the triple-A credit rating of this province, and to us blowing $2 billion, cash in the bank and now owing $1 billion. The one person most responsible for that does not do the honourable thing,

[ Page 352 ]

does not resign his seat — does not even resign as a minister, let alone resign his seat. No, that Minister of Finance, through his Treasury Board, has called for the resignation of about 67,000 teachers, doctors, nurses, clerks, administrators, foresters and university professors in the public service. He would inflict all of that on this province and not have the honour or decency to do the thing that Lord Carrington did. It's really ironic that a person forced to such measures is calling for the termination of 67,000 people in this province — like they didn't exist — without even so much as a provision whereby they could be first fired, first hired, or whereby people could at least have some kind of a seniority right, to come back into the public service, for all of their years in the public service.

[5:45]

I don't recall that I've ever been dismissed without cause. I don't know that I've ever used a personal reference, such as my own father, in this House. But I know that after he gave years and years of service to a company, and received a sales award for the top sales performance for the previous six months, within two weeks of receiving that award he was fired, because one of his "friends" was promoted to a senior management position and didn't want any of his old colleagues operating below him. That's what it means to have dismissal without cause. All I can say is that when that happens when a person is in the latter part of his career, it's something you don't adjust to. You might as well be terminated, and I would say that his life as he had known it was terminated by that act.

Here, about 30 years later, we're bringing in this retrograde step, terminating not a nameless, faceless person but 67,000 men and women. I'm not talking just about the public service. This thing is going to go on and on, and you are setting the pattern. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) applauds when I say that this is going to go on and on. We're going to see this throughout all sectors. This particular piece of legislation and its companion piece, Bill 2, remove the right for a just dismissal from all of the people who are not in unions and all of the people who are in public service. Who's going to be next? It only leaves one group, and that's organized employees. It already covers the majority of the people working in British Columbia.

Just with the public sector employees we might have seen the announcement in the budget about how many people are actually provincial government employees. But this is going to go on and create even more dislocation with people in all communities. I don't know how some of those members are going to go back to their ridings and face these people who've been terminated.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I do know one thing. I know one little department that has already been terminated and out of the six employees in that little group, three of them voted Social Credit in the last election. I know of another employee who says that he "worked his butt off for Brian Smith" and he has also received his termination.

This is not what people voted for. People who went out and campaigned for Social Credit only to see themselves fired obviously didn't vote for this. It is what we.... Well, if you want to have another election today, then you talk to the Premier. You are the government for the next five years if you choose not to call an election before that time, and I acknowledged that during the throne debate. They are the government, and being government, it carries certain powers. But if you want to even pretend to be part of the British parliamentary tradition, it also carries with it responsibilities. That means that when a minister of finance keeps predicting surpluses and he ends up blowing $2 billion.... Lord Carrington resigned over one little incident. Certainly an incident that drags on for four failures in a row out of four and when a person has that kind of batting average, he should also resign in order that he can face the people he has caused to be dismissed summarily and without cause with any sort of dignity. When you do so badly financially in this province in a short matter of four years — blowing $3 billion — you really should think about the responsibilities of holding office and whether you are competent to hold office. Never mind that the people gave you a vote of confidence in the last election. They certainly should change some of the faces on that side of the House. There isn't a member in these benches, either down here in the rump group or on that side, who could not do a better job than the Minister of Finance has done over the last four years.

At this time I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, following the oral question period of July 14 the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rose on a point of order relating to a question asked by the member for Shuswap–Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) and the answer thereto given by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). For guidance relating to questions, generally, I would refer hon. members to the Journals of this House, June 30, 1982, at page 90, and Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, pages 69 to 79.

Further, on Thursday last, the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) rose on a point of order — namely, that the Hansard transcript did not include a certain comment allegedly made by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) when tabling an annual report in this House. Reports are filed in the House, either in accordance with a mandatory statutory provision, as occurred in this case, or, where no statutory provision exists, by leave of the House. In either situation debate is not permitted, and the Hansard transcript records the event by way of a style line — i.e., the event is recorded but debate does not take place. Accordingly any remarks by the member tabling the report are not recorded. I have checked the Hansard Blues for Thursday last and have confirmed that this procedure was used in the case at hand and in accordance with the existing practice.

On Friday last, the hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) sought to move adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance — namely, the discharge of the staff and the director of the human rights branch. The determination of whether a matter comes within the confines of standing order 35 involves a finding that the business of the House should be set aside to consider the matter at hand. Such a finding cannot be made where there exists an ordinary parliamentary opportunity to discuss the matter. The orders of the day provide for consideration of the budget with priority over all other business except for introduction of bills and interim supply. In view of the wide scope for debate allowed under the appointed business of the House, the application cannot proceed.

[ Page 353 ]

MR. COCKE: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On your second ruling, in terms of ministerial debate at the presentation of a report, could I ask the guidance of the Speaker as to whether or not the ministers should then be admonished not to make a statement at all, other than "I have the honour to present the following reports"?

MR. SPEAKER: All hon. members should be admonished that remarks which are not in order should not be made in this chamber.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.